Text in a letter sent from attorney Harvey Steinberg to Gene Washington on behalf of Denver Broncos safety John Lynch:

Dear Mr. Washington:

Please be advised that this office represents the interests of Mr. John Lynch with regard to your letter dated January 3, 2005. This letter should serve as our formal request, pursuant to Article XI of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, that this matter be set for a timely appeal before the Commissioner or his designee.

I am very concerned with the tenor of your letter to John with regard to this matter. Specifically, on prior occasions with regard to John and other players I have represented, the transmittal letter imposing the proposed sanctions merely contains a factual rendition of the allegations and the methodology for seeking an appeal. This letter is remarkably different. At paragraph 4 of your letter, in bold type you write the following, "But be reminded that future infractions of the type you have committed can lead to increased disciplinary action, up to and including suspension. Additionally, we will remind the officiating crew in this week's Broncos' game that you can be ejected from a game if they determine such action is warranted."

The inclusion of this language can only be perceived as an attempt to influence and affect John's play during the game. Prior to the final appeal, at which we believe we will prevail, there has not been a final determination as to whether or not John in fact violated any league rule and should be subjected to a fine. By including this language, you have demeaned the appellate process and have suggested that the official who was in the same position that John was prior to the tackle, viewed John's tackle as legal and appropriate.

It was only after several minutes of reviewing the videotape of this situation that it was ruled that no catch had been made. In fact, the referee who viewed the videotape personally advised Mr. Lynch that he could not imagine the Mr. Lynch would be fined since it took him several minutes of review to determine whether or not the catch had been made. If, as the referee initially determined, there was a catch and run by the receiver, John and his head coach have been informed that the tackle by John would have been both appropriate and within the NFL Rules.

The procedurally inconsistent inclusion of threatening language will possible affect John's game performance during the upcoming playoff game. This is totally inappropriate conduct for any league official. Of even more concern is your statement that you intend to have personal contact with the game officials prior to the game to advise them to keep an eye out for John. We are concerned that this may influence the outcome of this contest.

Obviously, John is aware of the rules and has tremendous respect for this game and his role. We assume the game officials are also aware of the rules. Your perceived need to remind them of the rules can only be interpreted by them as a message from you as a representative of the league to single John out for special attention. In reviewing the Collective Bargaining Agreement, we are well aware of the Commissioner's rights concerning the imposition of a fine. However, there is nothing contained within that agreement that would allow for you to attempt to threaten and intimidate a player by the language contained in your letter. John has gained a reputation amongst his peers as a tough but clean and legal player. We believe that assertion would be echoed not only by Competition Committee Chairman Richard McKay, but also Indianapolis Head Coach Tony Dungy, among others. Your letter besmirches that reputation inappropriately.

As a result, we fear that the integrity of this contest will be impacted adversely here by the influence on the impartiality of the officiating crew. To ensure that this does not take place, we are demanding a retraction of the above noted objectionable language. If, in fact, you or your representatives have already had contact with the officials, we demand to know who made that contact and exactly what was said to the officiating crew. Anything less jeopardizes the fairness of the officiating crew and the integrity of the contest.

In fact, the referee who viewed the videotape personally advised Mr. Lynch that he could not imagine the Mr. Lynch would be fined since it took him several minutes of review to determine whether or not the catch had been made.

The procedurally inconsistent inclusion of threatening language will possible affect John's game performance during the upcoming playoff game. This is totally inappropriate conduct for any league official.

John Lynch could have is preformance effected, sob.

Inappropriate conduct for an official. Ummmm what about Lynch's conduct? Thats ok i suppose?

"But be reminded that future infractions of the type you have committed can lead to increased disciplinary action, up to and including suspension. Additionally, we will remind the officiating crew in this week's Broncos' game that you can be ejected from a game if they determine such action is warranted."

__________________
On January 3rd, 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.60% with a RECORD 52 months of JOBS growth and the GDP was 3.50%. January 3rd, 2007 is also the day Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the House and the US Senate.

I lost all respect for Lynch when he whined about being hit by a WR. Brian Finnerin jacked his ass up. If you are going to take your shots at guys, you have to just shake it off when packback comes your way.

It's funny, the Donkeys think it's ok when their players hurt the other teams players ("it was a legal hit") but they cry when their player gets hurt during "a legal hit" IE Dale Carter hurting their corner's knee several years ago. Remember how they kept talking about revenge and such. The league ruled that Carter had done a legal block, but the Donkey fans still thought it was wrong (and still whine about it today).